Deep purple machine head sacd help

[Owen Smith]

I believe the bonus tracks on the SACD contain DVD-A watermarking. Frankly these Machine Head quad releases are a confusing mess.

 

[ssully]

That would make sense since they are in fact those same 2001 DVD-A mixes.

MoB1 seems to refer to some variations I have not heard. But as best I know, there are still only three distinct multichannel mixes of Machine Head

1 - 1972 UK/Europe/Australia quad (reportedly done back then by Peter Mew, definitely repurposed by him as 4.1 for a 2003 European SACD, which was also included on the 2012 40th anniversary box DVD), (I have never heard the original quad, only its 4.1 repurposing, which btw has a silent C channel, so it presents as 5.1)

2 - 1974 US quad (found nowhere officially, in the modern era) (I have heard this)

3 - 2001 US/global 5.1 (done by Paul Klingberg for the 2001 DVD-A, released again in 2011 on Japanese SACD, and three tracks from it were included as bonuses on both the 2003 UK/Euro SACD and the 2012 box DVD) (I have heard this)

The 1974 US quad and the 2001 DVDA 5.1 mixes are different in terms of channel placement of parts, of course, but none of the tracks are altered with deletions or use of alternate takes compared to the famous 1972 stereo mix.
In contrast, the 1972 UK/Euro/Aus quad mix is not only different in the usual ways, but has a deletion in 'Lazy' (making it shorter than normal) and possibly edits/alternate takes on some other tracks that I have not tried to confirm.

And curiously, the 1972 German quad LP version features an even shorter 'Lazy' track length than the 1972 UK/Euro/Aus quad, but I have not heard it to say what is going on there.

 

[quadsearcher]

I've hesitated long enough to ask this. Early in my quad journey I heard a version where the first vocal on Highway Star was "well (LF), well (RF), well (RR), well (LR)" in other words the first word repeated circled CW around the speakers.
Was this the US quad? I suspect so since imports weren't as common at the time. Or did I imagine it?

 

[ssully]

On the US quad (from a Q4), those wails start in the RR, then are joined by LR, and that's all. Nothing in fronts.

On the UK quad rip I have , originally from the 2003 SACD, --a rip which supposedly has a 'corrected' channel assignment, with the rear channels "swapped over to restore the original UK SQ mix configuration' -- they overlap in this order:
LR RF RR LF

an 'X' configuration. ( The RF and RR wails overlap very closely, but a spectral view shows the RF start before RR )

un-swapped, the overlapping wails would sound in this order
RR RF LR LF

a 'parallel' configuration

 

[MidiMagic]

On the US quad (from a Q4), those wails start in the RR, then are joined by LR, and that's all. Nothing in fronts.

On the UK quad rip I from the 2003 SACD, --a rip which supposedly has a 'corrected' channel assignment, with the rear channels "swapped over to restore the original UK SQ mix configuration' -- they overlap in this order:
LR RF RR LF

an 'X' configuration. ( The RF and RR wails overlap very closely, but a spectral view shows the RF start before RR )

un-swapped, the overlapping wails would sound in this order
RR RF LR LF

a 'parallel' configuration

They can't even agree what the original intent was.

 

[ssully]

who is 'they'?

 

[Owen Smith]

who is 'they'?

Part of the problem may be that they don't know either...

 

[ssully]

In my post, 'they' would be the source I got the rip from, who offered me both the straight rip from the SACD, and the supposedly 'corrected' version of it, made by swapping LR and RR channels.

I don't know what 'they' Midimagic refers to. I guess strictly original intent would be whatever is on the 1972 UK quad LP. But I find it hard to believe that anyone back then really favored snipping out part of Lazy

 

[Owen Smith]

In my post, 'they' would be the source I got the rip from, who offered me both the straight rip from the SACD, and the supposedly 'corrected' version of it, made by swapping LR and RR channels.

I don't know what 'they' Midimagic refers to. I guess strictly original intent would be whatever is on the 1972 UK quad LP. But I find it hard to believe that anyone back then really favored snipping out part of Lazy

Back in 1972 the quad mix was probably done on the cheap in a great hurry and mistakes were made.

 

[ssully]

Back in 1972 the quad mix was probably done on the cheap in a great hurry and mistakes were made.

At least one source is telling me Peter Mew did the original 1972 quad mix for the UK release. Is that plausible?

 

[ssully]

A great many 1970s quad mixes sound just like that to me too. They can be really welcome, revealing, interesting, etc at the same time. But many still sound unfinished. I include the revered Dark Side of the Moon with that - ahead of its time and accomplished as it is.

Guess I need to rock out Machine Head! Now I can't remember if my UK copy has reversed rears or not. I thought I liked the US quad mix better. Maybe that more recent 5.1 had fuller fidelity though? I thought one of the tracks was edited shorter in stereo vs the quad mix too.

the true 5.1 from 2001 DVDA by Paul Klingberg is a different beast from both quad mixes. Too much reverb added for my ears, which for me detracts from 'fidelity' to the sound/feel of the stereo original, but I know it has its fans.

I also believe there are a total of 3 surround mixes for this. Any differences beyond that are slight mastering differences. Still wish In Rock and Fireball had this fidelity!

Yes, only 3, not counting a possible variant of the UK mix on the German LP.

 

[jimfisheye]

the true 5.1 from 2001 DVDA by Paul Klingberg is a different beast from both quad mixes. Too much reverb added for my ears, which for me detracts from 'fidelity' to the sound/feel of the stereo original, but I know it has its fans.


Yes, only 3, not counting a possible variant of the UK mix on the German LP.

I remember not really liking that 2001 remix. A lot of the circa early 2000s 5.1 remixes for DVDA have a frustrating mix of very professional fidelity but flat lifeless mixes IMHO. Some of the quads - even flawed, damaged, or unfinished, still run circles around them! (Sorry for the pun.)

 

[jimfisheye]

Revisiting these 3 mixes today.
I take back my earlier comment about the 2001 5.1 remix having good fidelity! I clearly had the US quad in mind with that comment.

I believe I'm hearing someone's 10k eq boost on the copy of the Q4 US quad mix I have. I did alter this copy myself with a little restoration mastering some years ago and I remember one of the things I did was turn down some of that 10k. Should have attenuated it more... This mix still has the best 'fullest' 'meatiest' sound and fidelity of the 3. It also has the most reverb! This is the reverb heavier mix, not the 2001 5.1.

The SACD copy of the UK quad has a choked lower-fi sound. This is the more dry mix of the 3. Serious choked sound on the cymbals and kind of anemic overall. I don't know what I think of the rears being reversed or not. I thought it matched the other mixes more out of the box. I can't point to a panning clue that convinces me one way or the other. My sense is to leave it as is but if someone with an encoded vinyl copy says that is reversed from this SACD... noted then. Lazy is edited shorter as mentioned.

The 2001 5.1 remix is not terrible but the US quad is a more interesting mix and better fidelity by a full notch. The low end is maybe a little punchier than the US quad mix but not by much. Maybe that's what I was hearing when I thought it had some fidelity advantage? Smoke on the Water has an extended end before the fade by 40 seconds. No great reveal with that. Smells of whoever mixed it thinking they were making some kind of bonus with the only song they recognized or something. They mixed the b-side and included it here though which is nice.

The US quad wins by miles. It's better fidelity than the stereo mix too. I don't know what track I thought was edited in the stereo mix. I might have been thinking of the In Rock album? I think there were flawed pressings with the start of Speed King cut off.

All these run at slightly slightly different speeds. Analog tolerance issues. Not actual different speeds by ear. You see the slight timing differences with that when you line up the digital copies is all. The only genuine different edits are UK quad Lazy and 2001 5.1 Smoke.

We need a proper reissue of the US quad!

 

[jimfisheye]

PMFJI - The ARP synth prior to the drum solo section is opened "early", 2-3 seconds before the rhythm section has fully halted as it does with the stereo version. I've been wondering for 50 years why it was released this way. It's not the end of the world, but the original smooth segue was lost in the process.

This track calls out so hard for the quad/surround treatment and ends up being so disappointing. The synth coming in early like that is pretty glaring!

The intro to Ten Years After - Here They Come is another raised eyebrow! Love that quad mix to death but that original segue is baked into my brain and the quad sure sounds more like an uncorrected mistake than an intentional alteration.

 

[Owen Smith]

The SACD copy of the UK quad has a choked lower-fi sound. This is the more dry mix of the 3. Serious choked sound on the cymbals and kind of anemic overall. I don't know what I think of the rears being reversed or not. I thought it matched the other mixes more out of the box. I can't point to a panning clue that convinces me one way or the other. My sense is to leave it as is but if someone with an encoded vinyl copy says that is reversed from this SACD... noted then. Lazy is edited shorter as mentioned.

Several years ago a group of us put quite a bit of effort into working out what the UK SACD mix is. One of us made a DVD-A that repeated one track from the US Q4, then the UK SACD, then the SQ vinyl decoded, followed by another track from the three sources, and the mixes were all different. After a while of puzzling it was me that realised the SACD rear swap, the DVD-A was re-created, and suddenly it all made sense. The SQ decode comparison is a little awkward because rear sounds aren't removed from the fronts so you're comparing mid right/left sounds in SQ with fully right/left sounds in SACD.

The other hint is both the SQ vinyl and the UK SACD have the short version of Lazy.

Note the US Q4 and CD-4 are the same mix.

 

[watsontr]

Noticed that a decode of the SQ showed up yesterday Neo!

 

[quicksrt]

The UK quad SACD has the rears swapped left/right, proven by comparing with a decode of the SQ LP.

Maybe the forthcoming Quadio release can use the US quad mix as well as the UK quad mix with fixed rear channels?

Make it something really special?

 

[Owen Smith]

Maybe the forthcoming Quadio release can use the US quad mix as well as the UK quad mix with fixed rear channels?

Make it something really special?

That would be really great, definitely the complete edition if they do it.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Maybe the forthcoming Quadio release can use the US quad mix as well as the UK quad mix with fixed rear channels?

Make it something really special?

That was talked about here by ForagingRhino: DIGITAL - Deep Purple - Machine Head (UK Quad Mix on the 2003 EMI SACD)

(Post #17 and 19)

Essentially, they say the US mix will be offered up. If there is a disc that has the UK mix with the US mix, it's not happening this year.

Also it ought to be noted that the channel levels seem to be wrong on the UK SACD, as noted by the thread author in post #1.

 

[jimfisheye]

That SACD copy of the UK mix has low rears compared to the fronts. It sounds like an intentional mix rather than the rears too low via mastering mistake. The fronts are peak limited at least 3db and the whole thing boosted by the same. The rears are THAT low vs the fronts. I think it's just kind of a quick scratch mix and front heavy.

The US mix might have some weird **** going on - like the drum overheads in the rears but the kick and snare spot mics are in front. But it has full levels in all 4 corners and it's a more accomplished mix than the stereo version. I can't positively say if the choked lo-fi quality to the UK mix is poor mastering or the mix itself but I think it's the mix itself. Could this be one of those examples where they struggled with encoding the quad mix and ended up making a new compromised mix (the UK mix) that encoded better for the SQ vinyl?

Far too much speculation, sorry! The US mix sounds great. The UK mix sounds like another generic unfinished '70s quad mix. The 2001 5.1 remix doesn't just suck but doesn't have the accomplished level of the original US mix. You get the impression whoever did it wasn't even aware of the original quad mix like a lot of the circa 2000s DVDA surround remixes.

Mastering corner:
The 2001 5.1 mix tracks as bonus tracks on that SACD are fully polarity reversed for some reason. (All channels.) No real effect on the sound with that. Just noticed it when I zoomed in on the waves looking to confirm visually that they were the same audio just like they sounded.

I'm just always curious how these little faux pas come about! More so when it's a full blown screw up like polarity flipping just one of the channels or some of the more modern day Lfe channel screw ups. Was it just a mistake like leaving the polarity reverse button clicked on on a mixing board channel and not catching it? Is there some software with a known bug and someone missed it? Partly just interested in any war stories but also would be nice to know about any rogue software if anyone is pointing a finger.